Are they being serious?

[gO.SainTs]

I just heard:

Mooney - 1 week suspension

Gamble - 1 week suspension

And we are all familiar with the player who hit X Clarke, yes? (Keep forgetting who this is )

Well, HE GOT OFF. No suspension, no nothing.

[Saintschampions08]

I just heard:

Mooney - 1 week suspension

Gamble - 1 week suspension

And we are all familiar with the player who hit X Clarke, yes? (Keep forgetting who this is )

Well, HE GOT OFF. No suspension, no nothing.

And?

He didn't jump, he didn't use his elbow.
It was bad luck that X is smaller then him.

[i_luv_nick_riewoldt]

Trent West!

[rodgerfox]

I just heard:

Mooney - 1 week suspension

Gamble - 1 week suspension

And we are all familiar with the player who hit X Clarke, yes? (Keep forgetting who this is )

Well, HE GOT OFF. No suspension, no nothing.

And?

He didn't jump, he didn't use his elbow.
It was bad luck that X is smaller then him.

So the law against charging doesn't exist anymore?

[Mr Magic]

I just heard:

Mooney - 1 week suspension

Gamble - 1 week suspension

And we are all familiar with the player who hit X Clarke, yes? (Keep forgetting who this is )

Well, HE GOT OFF. No suspension, no nothing.

And?

He didn't jump, he didn't use his elbow.
It was bad luck that X is smaller then him.

So the law against charging doesn't exist anymore?

Obvioulsy not if they deem it to be 'in play' whatever the definition of that is!

Well now we all know waht you can do and cannot do so we can 'drill' our players into performing the art of 'picking off' smaller opponents at their leisure.

[Saintschampions08]

I just heard:

Mooney - 1 week suspension

Gamble - 1 week suspension

And we are all familiar with the player who hit X Clarke, yes? (Keep forgetting who this is )

Well, HE GOT OFF. No suspension, no nothing.

And?

He didn't jump, he didn't use his elbow.
It was bad luck that X is smaller then him.

So the law against charging doesn't exist anymore?

It was a shepherd, not a charge. Similar to the Kozzie V Giansirucusa injury.

[bigcarl]

disgrace by the afl and typical

if it wasn't for the barry hall incident which has stolen all the headlines surely they would have to act on the gutless hit on X, who had eyes only for the ball which, incidentally, wasn't close at the time

[joffaboy]

I just heard:

Mooney - 1 week suspension

Gamble - 1 week suspension

And we are all familiar with the player who hit X Clarke, yes? (Keep forgetting who this is )

Well, HE GOT OFF. No suspension, no nothing.

And?

He didn't jump, he didn't use his elbow.
It was bad luck that X is smaller then him.

So the law against charging doesn't exist anymore?

It was a shepherd, not a charge. Similar to the Kozzie V Giansirucusa injury.

Rubbish, nothing like it.

Go and learn the rules. It was more than 10 metres from the ball, he was hit in the head, and he was carried off on a stretcher.

However according to you that is fair?

As I say learn the rules.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

I just heard:

Mooney - 1 week suspension

Gamble - 1 week suspension

And we are all familiar with the player who hit X Clarke, yes? (Keep forgetting who this is )

Well, HE GOT OFF. No suspension, no nothing.

And?

He didn't jump, he didn't use his elbow.
It was bad luck that X is smaller then him.

So the law against charging doesn't exist anymore?

Obvioulsy not if they deem it to be 'in play' whatever the definition of that is!

Well now we all know waht you can do and cannot do so we can 'drill' our players into performing the art of 'picking off' smaller opponents at their leisure.

first off the bad we gotta get a player hard enuff to cause any dammage

[joffaboy]

first off the bad we gotta get a player hard enuff to cause any dammage

Dont need to.

All you hve to do is smash into a unsuspecting player.

Giansircusa is about 80k ringing wet and still ironed out 105kg Kosi.

Now officially sanctioned by the AFL.

You can pick off anyone from now on.

[Mr Magic]

St.Trav
Any player from Milne on up will cause damage if the bloke he 'hits' is unsuspecting because he believes he is not in the contest.

From the very little low=level football I played 30 years ago you knew to 'steel' yourself if you were going to be in the contest. Once out of the contest you 'relaxed' and therefore you don't need to be hit by a big/hard/tough bloke to be hurt.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Rubbish, nothing like it.

Go and learn the rules. It was more than 10 metres from the ball, he was hit in the head, and he was carried off on a stretcher.

However according to you that is fair?

As I say learn the rules.

what game are we playing netball or footy ? the bump looked worse then it was cause X didnt see it comming had he seen it he wouldnt of even hit the ground . so would you now suggest that when every you going to bump a bloke you have to yell "im about to bump you brace youself for it " seriously if it was hamil doing it to any other player we would be going on how its all part of the game

[bigcarl]

there was nothing hard or tough about what west did. anyone can pick off an unsuspecting player who is not looking

[Mr Magic]

Rubbish, nothing like it.

Go and learn the rules. It was more than 10 metres from the ball, he was hit in the head, and he was carried off on a stretcher.

However according to you that is fair?

As I say learn the rules.

what game are we playing netball or footy ? the bump looked worse then it was cause X didnt see it comming had he seen it he wouldnt of even hit the ground . so would you now suggest that when every you going to bump a bloke you have to yell "im about to bump you brace youself for it " seriously if it was hamil doing it to any other player we would be going on how its all part of the game

St.Trav, the laws of the game state that you have to be within 5 metres of teh ball to bump an opponent for it to be a legal bump.
Under no circumstances was this anywhere near 5 metres and at the very least it warranted a free kick.

[joffaboy]

what game are we playing netball or footy ?

A cowardly hit on an unsuspecting player is not footy. Does that happe in netball?

the bump looked worse then it was cause X didnt see it comming had he seen it he wouldnt of even hit the ground . so would you now suggest that when every you going to bump a bloke you have to yell "im about to bump you brace youself for it " seriously if it was hamil doing it to any other player we would be going on how its all part of the game

Doesn't matter if it looked worse or what your opinion is. The fact is that 5 metres from the ball is not in play and a player is entitled to believe that he will not get laid out with a hip an shoulder that hits him in the head.

It is dangerous and illegal.

It is not part of the game to iron out unsuspecting players when the ball is long gone.

Learn the rules.

[asiu]

dog act

[Saintschampions08]

I just heard:

Mooney - 1 week suspension

Gamble - 1 week suspension

And we are all familiar with the player who hit X Clarke, yes? (Keep forgetting who this is )

Well, HE GOT OFF. No suspension, no nothing.

And?

He didn't jump, he didn't use his elbow.
It was bad luck that X is smaller then him.

So the law against charging doesn't exist anymore?

It was a shepherd, not a charge. Similar to the Kozzie V Giansirucusa injury.

Rubbish, nothing like it.

Go and learn the rules. It was more than 10 metres from the ball, he was hit in the head, and he was carried off on a stretcher.

However according to you that is fair?

As I say learn the rules.

It was in play. He was hit barely above shoulder high (At no fault of Wests). He was carried off in a stretcher...and then came back onto the ground.

He didn't jump, so theirs no high contact.
He was performing a shepherd, so it wasn't malicious.
Clarke was chasing the ball, so it was in play.

West shouldn't be punished for Clarkes awareness, or lack there of.

[joffaboy]

It was in play.

No it wasn't, the ball was at least 10-15 metres away

He was hit barely above shoulder high

So we have established that it was 10-15 metres away and it was high.....

continue

(At no fault of Wests). He was carried off in a stretcher...and then came back onto the ground.

Irrelevant. He was hit high not in the play, you admit that yourself.

And it was Wests fault, he hit Clarke.

He didn't jump, so theirs no high contact.

Just because he didn't jump doesn't mean no hig contact. he was hit in the head

He was performing a shepherd, so it wasn't malicious.

You can only shepard the ball within 5 metres of the ball. The ball was between 10-15 metres away so it can be a shepard.

Clarke was chasing the ball, so it was in play.

Learn the definition of in play

West shouldn't be punished for Clarkes awareness, or lack there of.

You should learn the rules and stop blaming the victim. West is a gutless coward and anyone who defends him is a clueless twit.

[Mr Magic]

[quote="Saintschampions08
West shouldn't be punished for Clarkes awareness, or lack there of.[/quote]

Have you seen a replay or are you relying on what you saw at teh game?

ZThe replay clearly shows Clarke standing on teh mark and Geelong player #8 playing on to his own left. West comes in and bumps/shepherd's X who is obviously waiting for the umpire to call 'play on'.

How on earth would X have known he was goinfg to be collected by West whilst standing on teh mark? Is he psychic?

Now as for the actual hit. WHen a 199cm hits a 186 cm player with his shoulder there is always a likeliehood that the taller player is going to hit the shorter player in the head. That is exactly what happened.

It is West's responsibility to ensure he doesn't hit X in the head. IT IS NOT CLARKE'S.

[saintspremiers]

I reckon West got off as there was little media scrutiny due to Hall's King Hit which stole the limelight.....the AFL can't be bothered making a statement against a no-name player (West) when they've got the Hall incident to blow their arse with.

Just heard Channel 2 believe Hall will get 6 weeks....he should get 8 IMO

[Saintschampions08]

He was performing a shepherd, so it wasn't malicious.

You can only shepard the ball within 5 metres of the ball. The ball was between 10-15 metres away so it can be a shepard.

Clarke was chasing the ball, so it was in play.

Learn the definition of in play

West shouldn't be punished for Clarkes awareness, or lack there of.

You should learn the rules and stop blaming the victim. West is a gutless coward and anyone who defends him is a clueless twit.

I think you should learn the rules.

5.6 Each quarter runs for 25 minutes of playing time when the ball is in play.
The ball is deemed to be out of play in the following situations:

(a) A goal is scored. Time is stopped from when the goal umpire finishes
waving his flags to when the ball is bounced.

(b) A behind is scored. Time is stopped from when the goal umpire finishes
waving his flags to when the ball is kicked in.

(c) Whenever the field umpire signals to the time-keeper that time is to
be stopped by raising his arm and blowing his whistle.


7.3 A free kick is given against any player who:

(f) Shepherds an opponent when the ball is more than 5 meters away.

I agree, a free kick should be given...but it was in play.

[Saintschampions08]

1 - the bulk of the contact was to Clarke's body.

2 - West did not use his elbow as part of the contact.

3 - West did not leave the ground during his action.

4 - West did not run a great distance to make contact.

[rodgerfox]

I just heard:

Mooney - 1 week suspension

Gamble - 1 week suspension

And we are all familiar with the player who hit X Clarke, yes? (Keep forgetting who this is )

Well, HE GOT OFF. No suspension, no nothing.

And?

He didn't jump, he didn't use his elbow.
It was bad luck that X is smaller then him.

So the law against charging doesn't exist anymore?

It was a shepherd, not a charge. Similar to the Kozzie V Giansirucusa injury.

How close to the ball does it have to be?

10m?

[farquhar]

West should have got 3 games, a cowardly act.

[spert]

Simple -hit 'em hard when we play them again, not the wimpy stuff we served up last Saturday.